Naming Cyanophyta/Cyanobacteria – a Bacteriologist’S View
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Fottea 11(1): 9–16, 2011 9 Naming Cyanophyta/Cyanobacteria – a bacteriologist’s view Aharon OREN Department of Plant and Environmental Sciences, Institute of Life Sciences, and the Moshe Shilo Minerva Center for Marine Biogeochemistry, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Jerusalem 91904, Israel; tel.: +972–2– 6584951, fax: +972–2–6584425, e–mail: [email protected] Abstract: This paper provides information on the origin and the etymology of the names of genera of Cyanophyta/ Cyanobacteria in current use and on the way new names are formed under the provisions of the International Code of Botanical Nomenclature and the International Code of Nomenclature of Prokaryotes. Special emphasis is placed on the differences between the two Codes that should be taken into account when creating new names compatible both with the botanical and with the bacteriological nomenclature system, to support the ongoing efforts to harmonize the nomenclature of the Cyanophyta/Cyanobacteria under the two Codes. Key words: Cyanobacteria, Cyanophyta, Halothece, International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, International Code of Nomenclature of Prokaryotes, Nostoc Introduction LINNAEUS , as shown by the case of Nostoc discussed below. “The knowledge of classical Latin and Greek is This short essay was written with two permanently decreasing”. Thus complained HANS purposes. The first is to provide those who TRÜPER (1999) in this exemplary essay on “How to work with Cyanophyta/Cyanobacteria some name a prokaryote? Etymological considerations, information about the origin and the etymology proposals and practical advice in prokaryotic of their names. The question “What’s in a name”1 nomenclature”. Issues relating to etymology, often allows interesting insights into the nature Latin, and Greek are equally relevant to the of these organisms. An understanding of the nomenclature of the Cyanophyta/Cyanobacteria ways names were given in the past is also highly which was not discussed in–depth by TRÜPER relevant when suitable names should found to (1999, 2001). describe newly discovered genera and species. With over 250 names of genera described Table 1 therefore presents a glossary that contains (see http://www.cyanodb.cz/valid_genera), most of the elements found in the generic names the cyanobacteria are a relatively large group of Cyanophyta/Cyanobacteria. Unfortunately of prokaryotes. For comparison, the current the authors who proposed the names seldom list of genera with standing in the prokaryote provided their etymology. Therefore guesswork nomenclature (http://www.bacterio.cict.fr/ was sometimes needed, and comments and number.html#total), a list that contains only very corrections relating to this list are welcome. Some few cyanobacterial names, encompasses about elements used in the names are derived from 1900 names. Latin, but Greek words dominate. Botanists who The history of some of the cyanobacterial described all those genera in the past have made names is much longer than the nomenclatural a particularly creative use of the Greek dictionary. history of most other prokaryotes. When in I hope that the glossary will be helpful to those 1875 FERDINAND Coh N classified bacteria in six who deal with cyanobacterial names, so that the genera, many cyanobacterial genera had already dictum “It was Greek to me”2 will not apply to been named by botanists such as HANS CH RIS T IAN students of cyanobacteria. LYNGBYE (1782–1837), CAR L AD O P H AGARD H (1785–1859), and others. Some scientific names of cyanobacteria in current use even predate 1 SH AKESPEARE , Romeo and Juliet 2 SH AKESPEARE , Julius Caesar 10 OREN : Cyanobacterial nomenclature The second reason for presenting this information substantive (noun) in the genitive case (Rule is the ongoing effort to harmonize the 12c). Under the Botanical Code, the rules are nomenclature of the Cyanophyta/Cyanobacteria less strict: “The epithet in the name of a species under the two Codes: the International Code of may be taken from any source whatever, and Botanical Nomenclature (MCNEI ll et al. 2007) – may even be composed arbitrarily” (Art. 23.2). ‘the Botanical Code’, and the International Code The Bacteriological Code does not enable the of Nomenclature of Prokaryotes (formerly the formation of a specific epithet such as used International Code of Nomenclature of Bacteria) in Microcystis ichthyoblabe (from Greek (LAPAGE et al. 1992) – ‘the Bacteriological Code’. ἰχθύς = fish; βλάβη = damage), but under the Although the provisions in both Codes for naming Botanical Code such an epithet can be validly new genera and species are quite similar, minor published, even if Recommendation 23A.3(a) differences exist, and these should be taken into suggests “To use Latin terminations insofar as account when creating new names compatible possible”. both to the ’botanical’ and to the ‘bacteriological’ 3. Under the Bacteriological Code, the derivation nomenclature system. (etymology) of a new name must be given (Rule 27.2(b) as modified in 1999) (DE VO S & TRÜPER 2000). Under the Botanical Code, the The rules of the Codes specification of the etymology of the new name is a recommendation only: “The etymology of Most genera and species of Cyanophyta/ new names or of epithets in new names should Cyanobacteria have been named under the rules be given, especially when their meaning is not of the Botanical Code; see also Com PÈRE (2005) obvious” (Recommendation 60H.1). for valuable comments on the way names are 4. Use of hyphens in specific epithets is not formed under the provisions of this Code. Only allowed under the rules of the Bacteriological a few generic names have been published under Code. “If an epithet has been hyphenated, its the provisions of the Bacteriological Code. parts should be joined. The name retains its Examples are Halospirulina, Planktotricoides, validity and standing in nomenclature” (Rule Prochlorothrix, and Rubidibacter (OREN & 12a). Under the Botanical Code, the use of TINDA ll 2005; OREN et al. 2009). the hyphen is allowed, both in generic names When comparing the rules of nomenclature (Article 20.3) and in specific epithets (Article there are a number of interesting differences 23.1; see also Article 60.9). Therefore names between both Codes: containing a hyphen such as Anabaena flos– aquae and Dolichospermum torques–reginae 1. According to Principle I of the Botanical Code, [torquis–reginae would be grammatically “Botanical nomenclature is independent of preferable!] are allowed under the Botanical zoological and bacteriological nomenclature”. Code. Recommendation 23A.3(d) states However, the formerly similar Principle 2 that authors should avoid creating specific of the Bacteriological Code was modified in epithets formed of two or more hyphenated 1999, and now states that “The nomenclature words, and recommendation 23A.3(b) warns of Prokaryotes is not independent of botanical against the creation of epithets that are very and zoological nomenclature” (DE VO S & long and difficult to pronounce in Latin. TRÜPER 2000). Therefore it is still possible Not all authors, however, have followed to use a generic name with standing in the these recommendations, as the example of prokaryote nomenclature to name a new genus Coelosphaerium evidenter–marginatum shows of plants, including cyanobacteria, but the (AZE V ED O & SAN T ’ANNA 1999). opposite is no longer allowed. 2. Under both Codes, scientific names of Diacritical signs are not allowed in genus and taxonomic groups are treated as Latin. Under species names under both Codes (Rule 64 of the the Bacteriological Code, a specific epithet must Bacteriological Code; Art. 60.6 of the Botanical be treated in one of the three following ways: 1. Code). The name Chamaesiphon komárekii As an adjective that must agree in gender with (Rott 2008) was thus created in violation of the generic name, 2. As a substantive (noun) the regulations, and should be corrected to in apposition in the nominative case, 3. As a Chamaesiphon komarekii. Fottea 11(1): 9–16, 2011 11 Overall the rules of the Botanical Code allow more field. Thus we have genera such as Borzia and ways to create new generic names and specific Borzinema (honoring AN to NI O BO RZI , 1852–1921), epithets than does the Bacteriogical Code. In view Geitleria and Geitlerinema (Loth AR GEI tl ER , of the attempts to harmonize the nomenclature 1899–1990), Gomontiella (MAURI C E Gomo N T , of the Cyanophyta/Cyanobacteria under both 1839–1909), Jaaginema (Otto JAAG , 1900–1978), Codes, it is recommended that new names to be Lemmermanniella (ERNS T Joh ANN LE mm ER M ANN , added in the future should be compatible with the 1867–1915), Lyngbya and Leptolyngbya (HANS provisions of both Codes. CH RIS T IAN LYNGBYE , 1782–1837), Stanieria (RO GER ST ANIER , 1916–1982), and others. Undoubtedly there are more distinguished The case of Halothece californica colleagues who have contributed much to the taxonomy of the Cyanophyta/Cyanobacteria In view of the above considerations, the case and deserve to be honored with a name of a of the description of Halothece californica cyanobacterial genus. However, this is not always (MARG H ERI et al. 2008) is to some extent a missed simple. For example: in the cases of FRIEDRI ch opportunity. The paper intended to provide a KÜ T ZING (1807–1893) and CAR L AD ol P H AGARD H description of a new genus and species in a form (1785–1859), Kuetzingia is already a rhodophyte that should be compatible first of all with the genus, but “Kuetzingiella” can still be used; the requirements of the Botanical Code, but with the name Agardhia apparently has been already Bacteriological Code as well. However, Principle used for more than one botanical taxon (see the 3 of Bacteriological Code states that “The Index Nominum Genericorum – A compilation scientific names of all taxa are Latin or latinized of generic names published for organisms words treated as Latin regardless of their origin” covered by the International Code of Botanical (see also Rule 6), and Principle V of the Botanical Nomenclature; http://botany.si.edu/ing/).